January offered a fully loaded month of sports content in Philadelphia, filled with topics that were tough to dream about when the pandemic put all seasons on hold last spring.
Beginning with the Eagles “tanking” on Sunday Night Football, followed by their decision to retain Doug Pederson, only to part ways with him shortly after. Debates about the future of Carson Wentz and whether his short tenure as a starting quarterback is already over. Finding the next coach, then hearing Nick Sirianni’s opening press conference. Potentially dealing Ben Simmons for James Harden, and even the Phillies got in on the action when they signed J.T. Realmuto.
It’s a lazy radio host’s dream. Let the headlines do the work and feel good about calling it a day because there was no room for creativity.
But Jon Marks and Ike Reese are focused on more than just getting through each show for 94WIP. The afternoon duo works to build a community of listeners. It’s fast paced, with moving parts that keep the show busy. Producer Jack Fritz offers an energetic third voice on standby. And the fabric of sports radio in the northeast is on full display, lots and lots of callers.
There was room for more audio, drops and clips. Audio actualities fit the show’s pace and continue it on the path of having morning sound with afternoon content. Similar to the way color makes magazines more exciting than a newspaper, sound enhances the listening experience of a radio show.
The month started off with a local topic that went national when Doug Pederson and the Eagles seemingly tanked their final game of the regular season. There weren’t many people defending Pederson’s decision to play Nate Sudfeld during the second half of the Eagles Week 17 loss to Washington. There was an even smaller percentage of former players who were defending what appeared to be a tank job.
What the Eagles did in their final game of the season was sacrilegious, yet while Marks’ anger built on-air, Reese was more sympathetic to the decision by Pederson and the Eagles to prioritize jumping three spots in the draft.
For years, Reese has been yelling ‘let the bronco buck!’ But as soon as the WIP mainstay wanted the Ferrari tucked into the garage, it showed that after nearly 15 years away from the field, Reese might be more media than former player. A former player accepting the decision to tank, rationally recognizing the long-term benefit? The surprise was refreshing.
Marks and Reese do a good job of letting conversations build, they state their opinions at the start of a topic, but their best supporting points might not come until later in the segment. Pick a talk radio host and transcribe their monologue or segment. Then convert it into an essay and you might be able to cut it in half because of repeated points with changed verbiage.
But WIP’s afternoon show stacks their points rather than repeating them. If Marks is passionate about a topic, his energy builds as the segment gets rolling. An eloquent voice of the fans, maintaining a naturally genuine sound as his frustrations snowball.
I would have liked them to dig deeper on James Harden being dealt to the Brooklyn Nets. The news broke shortly after an interview with Kevin O’Connor of The Ringer where the census was Harden would be heading to Philly. In the next segment, WIP dropped their ‘Breaking News’ sound effect, announcing the Rockets and Nets had a deal.
Marks and Reese were on opposite ends of the spectrum with what was a potentially franchise altering move for the 76ers. When the situation had finality, I was expecting a solid discussion to come out of the news, but it was brief before the focus shifted to caller opinions. If hosts have drastically different opinions on a polarizing decision, I’d delay the calls and see how the conversation can cultivate.
I understand text lines and the purpose they serve. It gives your community of listeners another avenue to contribute and get in touch with the show. But while I believe callers have the ability to enhance a show when used correctly, a host monotonously reading off a list of texts does nothing for the listener.
The chosen texts are often self-serving, providing a pat on the back for the show or host.
‘Nice job, love listening to you guys!’
But turning the bland segment into a parody by having the texts voiced over was a great idea from Marks & Reese. It made a usually boring segment into a humorous bit, combining sound and listener interaction to unveil a reimagined text line.
If a listener misses any of the show, they have plenty of content available on-demand through the RADIO.COM app. The four-hour show is generally broken up into five podcasts. Entercom doesn’t have a blanket podcast policy, they let their stations govern themselves on how they want to offer on-demand content. I like having the option to hear the entire show, but realistically, I don’t frequently take advantage of it.
If I see a list of five podcasts, each about 35 minutes long, I’m more likely to say ‘I’ll listen to it later.’ Much of sports radio is time sensitive and I’m probably not fishing through 35-minute segments to find content that’s still relevant. But if the clips are cut down to less than 10 minutes, I’m willing to invest that time to check out a rant or debate, even if at the risk of it being old news.
The interviews on Marks & Reese were fine because they were generally a side note to the show. Brian Baldinger, Eliot Shorr-Parks, Merrill Reese, Kevin O’Connor, they were predictable guests that might not do much to further the conversation, but they didn’t derail the show either. You’re not going to be surprised by a guest and the Insider impact was minimal for the casual listener, but still offered something informative for the die-hard fan.
Marks and Reese take a lot of calls, just as most northeast sports radio shows do. And there are some brutal callers. But there are also callers that become part of the show and help create that community aspect. As a listener, I prefer bad callers over boring interviews. I will never stop listening to a bad call, because I know it will be over in seconds. But I will never continue listening to a bland interview because I know it won’t be over for another 10 minutes.
Calls give listeners a chance to congratulate Marks on his minivan purchase. It’s also where you get listeners who are jealous of Chuck from Mount Airy, calling in to question his authenticity. Talking to people who are less concerned with the radio clock or speaking with inflection, and are instead only focused on an irrational point about the Eagles, makes radio relatable.
Covid Is A Convenient Excuse For Lowering Our Standards
“I am sick of hearing lag and noticeably different levels of soundproofing between two hosts on the same show.”
I was probably four hours deep into my all-day football binge on Saturday when I started to think about the overall quality of what I was seeing. This isn’t a column about whether college football is secretly better than the NFL. This is about our industry.
While you may not notice a difference in the presentation on CBS’s top line SEC broadcast or on FOX’s Big Noon Saturday game, it is clear how few resources are being allocated to some of the games further down the networks’ priority list. ESPN doesn’t even send live broadcasters to its Thursday night college football game for instance.
Covid-19 was the beginning of this. It forced every business in the broadcast industry to re-evaluate budgets and figure out how to do games when travel and the traditional set up of broadcast booths simply were not on the table.
This isn’t a problem limited to game coverage either. Plenty of hosts still are not back in their radio studio. Plenty of guests on ESPN’s and FS1’s mid day debate shows are still appearing via Skype and Zoom connections. It is as if we have started counting on our audience not expecting quality any more.
I want to be perfectly clear. I get that this pandemic isn’t over. I get that in many cases, networks and stations are trying to avoid overcrowding studios and in some cases, make accommodations for top-level talent that refuse to get vaccinated. “It’s survival mode,” is the answer from corporate.
Do we still need to be in survival mode though? We are 18 months into this pandemic. The majority of Americans are vaccinated. The ones who aren’t are actively making a choice not to do what they need to in order to put on the best possible show they can.
I am sick of hearing lag and noticeably different levels of soundproofing between two hosts on the same show. I am sick of seeing hosts on crystal clear HD cameras in a high tech studio talk to someone on a dirty webcam that can’t be bothered to even put in headphones so they don’t sound like they are shouting down a hallway.
A good example is the late Highly Questionable. I really liked that show when it was done in studio. I liked a lot of the ESPN talent that popped up on the show even after Dan Le Batard left. I couldn’t watch any more of the show than the two minute clips that would show up on Twitter. I didn’t want to see Bomani Jones behind a giant podcast mic. The low res camera that turned Mina Kimes’s house plant into a green blob gave me a headache. The complete disregard for quality made a decent show hard to watch.
There was a time when the accommodations we made for Covid-19 were totally necessary. Bosses and broadcasters did whatever they had to to get a show or a game on the air. At this point, I am starting to wonder how much of the concessions are necessary and how much are the result of executives that “good enough” is the new standard.
It is totally reasonable to argue that in an age where microphones and editing software are cheap, slick production doesn’t carry the weight it once did. That is true for the podcasters and TikTokers that are creating content in spare bedrooms and home offices. If you’re ESPN or FOX or SirusXM, that slick production is what sells the idea that your content is better than what people can make at home on their own.
It’s soundproof studios, 4K cameras and futuristic graphics packages that make the standard setters in the industry special. Maybe your average Joe Six-Pack can’t put it into words. He just knows that a lot of home-produced content sounds and looks like play time compared to what he sees or hears on a network.
Sure, the anchors are the signature of SportsCenter’s heyday, but it was the stage managers, producers, and other behind-the-scenes staff doing their jobs that really made the show thrive. Those people cost money. The details they took care of may be something 90% of viewers will never notice. They will just know that they are watching a really good show. Those difference makers cannot do their jobs to the best of their abilities if everyone is being piped in from a different FaceTime feed.
In the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic we did whatever we had to. As broadcasters, we made compromises. As an audience, we accepted compromises. We were desperate for familiar entertainment and if Zoom is what it took to get it, that was just fine. There was no cure, no vaccine, things were scary and we were all anxious not knowing how long it would all last.
More than 18 months later, things may not be back to normal, but we are considerably less desperate. There are signs of normalcy in the world. Make the commitment to bring back the standard that won you so many fans in the first place.
If Netflix Wants Live Sports, F1 May Be Just The Beginning
“Netflix will shrewdly need to continue to rethink its strategy because its first-mover advantage and long-time industry leading dominance is no longer guaranteed.”
In the past, Hollywood dealmakers and stockbrokers wondered whether another studio or streamer would catch Netflix. Its dominance stemmed from being a first-mover and not having a serious competitor until Amazon and Disney ten or more years after their launch. However, Netflix would eventually have to compete for content, original and licensed, other platforms that offered less expansive ad-based options, and additional content like live sports or a very popular series or movie premiere.
Arguably, the pandemic accelerated the move to digital and it allowed competitors to gain subscribers because people were spending more time at home. More subscribers and additional streaming options for consumers has not caused Netflix to faulter, but it has caused Netflix to rethink its sports strategy. For years, Netflix was dead set again streaming live sports because of their cost and commercials—Netflix does not have advertisements on its platform currently.
Netflix’s popular Drive to Survive docuseries about the Formula 1 (or “F1”) racing circuit, which was renewed for a fourth season, and the Michael Jordan/Chicago Bulls The Last Dance represents a golden era and renaissance of sports documentaries. As much as fans of feature films and television series enjoy learning about actors during and off camera they similarly want to know about sports stars, their coaches, and franchises. In other words, the business of sports is booming in valuation and behind-the-scenes content.
Recently, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings stated that the popularity of Drive to Survive has caused the company to rethink its stance on purchasing live sports content. The broadcast and streaming rights to Formula 1 will become available via ESPN and Sky Sports in 2022 and 2024. Netflix, will have some competition to secure F1 rights, which will drive up the cost. It was also reported by Front Office Sports that the Netflix CEO would require a level of exclusivity for sports rights that other platforms do not normally require. The exclusivity is likely required because Netflix will want to justify the purchase price and to keep-in-line with what Netflix customers expect—exclusive content on the platform.
With Premier League club Manchester United looking to secure a broadcast deal for selling its rights outside of the traditional league format, it might be the perfect acquisition for Netflix. An exclusive team vs. an entire league would also be less expensive and more targeted. One aspect of uncertainty for all streamers is their subscribers overseas, particularly in untapped China. The international market is far from settled or established. Netflix also has a large operation in India so possibly cricket via the Indian Premier League (“IPL”) could be a rights purchase to consider.
In 2018, the original content on Netflix only accounted for 8%. This means that 92% of the content on the platform just a few years ago was all owned (at least partially) by someone else. That statistic has changed because Disney+, Paramount+, Peacock, HBO Max, Apple+, and many others have since been created and stocked or restocked with content. Controlling interest in Hulu was even purchased from FOX by Disney. Disney and Amazon now both rival Netflix in terms of subscribers. Netflix will shrewdly need to continue to rethink its strategy because its first-mover advantage and long-time industry leading dominance is no longer guaranteed.
As Comcast-owned NBCUniversal CEO Brian Roberts recently said, purchasing sports rights can be difficult. Sports rights are expensive. Exclusive sports rights are even more expensive. Sports rights only become available every five to ten years. Networks and streamers are highly competitive to secure those rights with the hope of landing viewers, subscribers, and advertising dollars.
Will Netflix get into sports rights bidding? In the past, the digital entertainment giant has been steadfast is its non-sports approach. However, the market has changed and is flooded with more competitors now. Netflix has to change to meet its customer and the market needs.
Formula 1 presents an interesting scenario for Netflix as a buyer and partner. F1 is a popular league internationally and growing in the United States. Two new F1 races in Miami, Florida, and Austin, Texas, in addition to season four of the Drive to Survive Netflix series are sure to drive traffic, pun intended, and interest in the racing sport.
Formula 1 is a sports league that will cost less to purchase streaming rights than a traditional American “Big 4” like the NBA, NFL, or MLB. Formula 1’s structure is also centered at the top so it would be easier to make an exclusive deal that Netflix seeks. The remaining questions being, will Netflix pursue Formula 1 sports rights to increase its streaming platform subscribers and compete with others? Second, will Netflix be the first to offer commercial free live sports programming—for a premium price—or offer in-screen ads and additional during-break inside looks, content, and analysis? Or will Netflix act more like a traditional broadcaster and offer advertisements to pay down its purchase price? One will know more after a few laps around the sun.
Manningcast Is Best Experienced As A Fan, Not As A Broadcaster
“I still would’ve watched the game had the alternate not been available, but with the Manning breakdown of each play, I was watching an otherwise meaningless game on the edge of my seat.”
Much has been written on this site already about the ESPN alternative to a traditional Monday Night Football broadcast, the Manningcast. Andy Masur asked if it worked and questioned the network pulling its audience in two different directions. Mark Madden said the concept undoubtedly works, but the content is poor.
Both articles are good reads. Both provide another level of insight from those in the industry and how they view this unique/high-profile concept. Industry views provide solid insight to the success and quality of the show itself, what works – what doesn’t. But if we can’t sit back and take our industry glasses off, and just look at this broadcast as sports fans, I feel we’ll never see it in clear view.
I’ll admit, for me, it took me no more than 5 minutes of watching week 1’s Ravens vs Raiders game to say “yeah, this isn’t meant for me”. I didn’t like the non-traditional approach of the broadcast, it felt like it lacked the energy of a traditional sportscast. The stadium volume was turned way down, the excitement was more in the conversation they were having with each other, rather than the game itself. It took me out of the moment of the game, rather than allowing me to get sucked in.
Now, in fairness, I kind of went into it with a narrow mind, thinking that would be the case. I am not someone who has the desire to flip around during the College Football Playoff broadcasts and catch the coaches corner or studio chatter, I want the game.
Bottom line is, I hated the Manningcast when I watched it in Week 1. I even went on the air the next day and trolled members of my audience that were effusive in their praise of it. In the limited sample I provided for myself, I had come to the conclusion that this broadcast wasn’t made for REAL football fans (insert caveman sound effect here) and that only the most casual viewer would want to watch this SNL wanna be of a football broadcast.
However, week 2, I decided I was going to be more open minded to it. I made it a point to break away from the traditional Packers vs Lions broadcast and watch the Manningcast, no matter how painful. I was completely wrong in my initial opinion.
Was Peyton Manning wearing a helmet and acting a little too zany for my taste in week 1? Yes. Is the guest connection quality well below what we should find acceptable in broadcasting? Yes. But that’s where I made the mistake. I was looking at this broadcast through the eyes of a broadcaster and not as a sports fan.
Peyton Manning’s charisma jumps off the screen, he is elite at describing what he sees on the field in a way that no one else can. Eli can be a little dry, but he’s low key funny. And they have real chemistry together, as they should. They are family after all.
The thing that hooked me the most was just how invested Peyton was in the plays on the field, he really gets into the game, truly invested in the success and failure of the quarterbacks. There was a moment in week 2 when Jared Goff threw the ball to an empty patch of grass 15 yards down the field and was subsequently called for intentional grounding. You could see Goff yelling at the referee, pleading his case. Peyton surmised, probably accurately, that Goff was telling the ref that the ball was thrown to the right place and that its not his fault the receiver didn’t run the correct route. Peyton then carried on and told stories of when this type of thing would happen to him when he played for Indianapolis and Denver. I was hooked.
I realized that I was far more invested in week 1 as a stand alone football game, I’m from Baltimore, I have a lot of love for the Ravens. Being invested in the game itself doesn’t lend as much flexibility. As a fan, you to want to hear about anything else but the action on the field. However, when watching two teams that I have no personal interest in, the Manning broadcast took on this new life. It created a level of interest for me as a REAL football fan that I otherwise would not have had. I still would’ve watched the game had the alternate not been available, but with the Manning breakdown of each play, I was watching an otherwise meaningless game on the edge of my seat. I felt like I had a front row view to a football clinic, held by two of the most accomplished players in league history.
Personally, I could live without the guests. I am not as entertained by the back and forth with Rob Gronksowski or Pat McAfee as it seems the majority of social media is, but the Manningcast does a brilliant job of bridging the gap between the hardcore football fan and the casual observer. It’s an absolute hit and I’ll be locked in for the next one.
Sports TV News6 hours ago
Adele’s ‘Hello’ Used To Hype NBC’s Patriots-Bucs Sunday Night Game
BNM Writers9 hours ago
Mark Levin Provides Another Masterpiece with New Book
Sports TV News3 hours ago
Jay Williams Off ESPN’s NBA Countdown
News Television8 hours ago
Ana Navaro: Very Thankful to Get a Third Negative COVID-19 Test